boboDS:
How did we get all those demos we already heard? Monitor mixes?? Do you really think that MK gave his OK to them??
VG:
The demos we have are only some from their first album, some from OES and some from MM. The first album demos could have come from various sources, this being the demo tape they sent to many people back then. The OES are too few to even mention, but I guess they were from advance promos send out, and MM ones come from the Arena documentary. So in a way they were officially made available but only to a small amount of people. And they were never released for the mass audience. The fact that 100, 1000, 10000 people? know about them and even some have as silver pressed or as downloads, doesn't mean that are in the clear. They were made available, some may have them, anytime the artist and copyright holder can go after them. After all this is a public place we talk, anyone can see. And teasing a person against his wishes is not very good.
BoboDS:
Regarding the making a band mad. I think it completely doesn't matter if a band decised to ban something or everything or whatever in case of demos. Because those demos were sold as bootlegs (songs under copyright), bootlegs for money, which is already illegal. So it doesn't matter if the band says "you can't!", because the law already says "you can't". So they can be banning whatever they would like to, it doesn't help to prove anything.
Of course this is strictly speaking about the leaked material, not live recordings.
VG:
This is the point I am trying to make. There is a double identity with these objects: The actual disc and the recording on it. The disc can be sold and bought, the recordings on them can't. So if someone buys them, he is under obligation not to reproduce the recording. After all if we are talking about acetates, read about the solid rock one, it was a gift. The gift barer can do whatever he wishes with it, even sell it, but he sells the actual object, not the recording. It is a thin line, but really exists. And yes, it is against the law to make money out of other people's work, and this is the definition of bootlegging. But it is also illegal to give away without permission. As for music, many artist understand that live bootlegs are targeting a small audience, the hard core fan base, that already buys the official material, so there is no point going after them. As for studio material, it is a whole other matter, since that material could antagonize the official product, or even destroy a myth/hype/reveal a secret etc. But even in this case, the studio recordings are for a small target group, so even Pink Floyd that gave them made relatively limited numbers of the Boxes. So in a way demos are not economically viable ALONE thus not a very big loss. Unless you intend to do such boxes, and MK doesn't. So I give you this, which is logical but unfortunately still not legal.
BoboDS:
+ What is the situation in case of leaked material anyway?? E.g. the recently "leaked" Pink Floyd animals demos, did the band expressively say that "this is ok by us, it can be on youtube"? Or did they say "this is against the law, put it down"? 2 weeks ago, there was neither, I haven't been following it since then. What does the law say? More importantly, do they even care?
VG:
Animals demos are very interesting to a fan base, (love them) but really close to the actual recordings. But that is no excuse. They are illegal and it is always up to the artists to go after them. The fact that nobody went after them does not make them legal. It is like trespassing. The fact that there is no fence/isn't locked and nobody catches you, doesn't mean you are not breaking the law. And I am grateful the demos exist. I guess since animals didn't have a super deluxe edition like DSOTM, WYWH and the Wall, they let them be.
BoboDS:
+ Thousands of demos are being shared, are they all illegal?
VG:
Demos are not by definition illegal. Many artists release them like including Pink Floyd issued a bus load of them with The Wall, DSOTM and WYWH. These are legal demos. And the ones that are not released are legal until someone spreads them around, for free or for money, because they don't serve the purpose they were created and because the artist, and copyright owners don't get money out of it.
BoboDS:
+ There are bootleged Dire Straits shows in the stores (Rockpalast is at least one, even sold as vynil), which are sold as officially released material. I have talked to several record shop owners in some European states and neither of them had NO idea they were illegal. We, as fans, have brought this fact multiple times to the resposinble people, PCM or whatever. And what did they do?? I don't know if they did anything, but the situation is still the same. Do they even care?
VG:
I think that some of the radio and TV broadcasts fall under a different law for issuing, so at least some of these recordings are actually legit. Can't really tell which, but if you have time it is not hard to find. I believe Rockplast is legit. Anyway I have spotted bootlegs in many main street record shops. If they are found, they may be forced to hand them over to authorities, destroy them and maybe pay a fine. Do you know the Page/Plant story with the bootleg records in Turkey? Page took them out of the shelves and walked away without paying, while Plant, cooler about such things, paid the owner. And they were the worse bootlegs there are, those of their official records and recordings!!! The fact that Plant accepted a simple reality for that moment, doesn't make the records legal and the shop legit.
boboDS:
If we want to speak about loyalt, letting them know that there are bootlegs sold is "at least a bit" loyal, but is it loyal from them not to take care of it??
VG:
Again, knowing that someone has an item, that was obtained legally is not an issue. Sharing the content is. Let me give you a far fetched example. Ever seen a promo copy that bares the writing:"Not for sale. Possession of ... record company. Item should be returned upon request ", for sale? Even though ebay and other sites allow the sale, if the company asks, the listing will be taken down immediately and if the company pushes even more, can demand the return of the promo. Selling is illegal, because the CD was made especially for promotion and no rights were given to the artist for the copy. Having is legal, until the company (if ever) ask you to return it. They don't know you until you reveal you have it. Loyalty is something strange. I mean that it can be interpreted in many ways and degrees. But it is actually a personal matter. I just try to justify and understand why he is not sharing. And an example from my field as a photographer. When I sell a photo at an exhibition, I don't sell the right to use it anywhere they please, I sell the actual item. In a way I am renting the image for a specific use, that of exhibiting at home. It is the same with the records, movies books etc. The fact that they come (or used to come , since now we have MP3s and digital downloads) with a physical object does not give you any rights, other than listening to it at your private place. (home, car etc)
boboDS:
+ Now putting aside the law. Would MK even care (there's similarity with the Animals bootlegs I say)? Would he care about some 5 demos from long lost history appearing?? Does DS interest him in any way these days (or the last 5 years anyway)? Are these songs that different, is there any possibility of a bad performance in the songs, or do they reveal something that has to be kept as a secret?
VG:
I don't know if he cares, but even if he doesn't, his publicist, company, etc might. As I have written long ago, the artist might not even remember the recording, might not have an objection, might even be pleased with it. But is this the way to find out? And maybe one - two songs have similarities with other songs, that can cause trouble and that is why they were not officially released. Or they were deemed as poor/fillers. Or he is just saving them for a later release. Stevie Nicks released "Planets of the universe" some 20 years after it was originally recorded from Fleetwood Mac during the Rumours sessions. (but a brand new version).
BoboDS:
More importantly, does MK have a problem with The Straits? There could a thin line between legal or illegal in this case, just like Chris White said in the interview. But I think, again, much more important question is, if he cares / has a problem with it. Because if he was this overprotective he would have stopped this in the beginnig and I don't think lawyers would have a problem with proving it. Just as they would have stopped sharing live shows, demos, leaked material, etc, if MK wanted to.
VG:
MK may have an issue , (as Guy said) but there are not many things he can do, since they do not call themselves Dire straits. All the rest that being said is a matter of ethics, law and business. But since I am not the composer, artist or copyright holder I don't see any problem with them playing.
VG:
Also, the masterdiscs are a very rare and pretty expensive item to obtain, but it doesn't interest many fans, because it is just an item. The recordings are already available.
BoboDS:
Which recordings? Because at least Six Blade Knife alternate, Tel Road demo, Private Invest demo, What's the matter demo are different judgding from the description text he posted. Not sure about the Solid Rock, to lazy to take out the Private Sessions, or Sultans, because haven't read that one on his forum. And if they were already available, what is this debate about then?
VG:
I don't mean acetates, I mean the copper metal discs that were used to create the vinyl records.
BoboDS:
Still, I am more and more convinced that he doesn't want to share it and all this is bollocks, than convinced that he is being loyal and such.
VG:
I can't judge a man's character, if I don't know him well. I always try to suppose the best until I am proven wrong. I don't try to defend Mimmo, I only try to find a logic reason. If he does not share for other reasons, is a personal choice of (maybe) an ethical dimension, that like "The Straits" case, I don't think we should go there, at least not more than sharing a personal opinion. It is fruitless, because everyone is entitled to his reasoning and opinion and should not try to convince anybody. After all music is pleasure, passion, whatever ... and should be treated as such. We are here to share about the artist we commonly enjoy. We should not feel anxiety about such things. (Although this might be exactly the proof we are fans!
)
